Message from @Airman Zeno
Discord ID: 693305206401925190
(yeah thats what i mean, any religious practice counts)
all of these are basically tautology except the last one
societies have been functional societies isn't really much of a claim
Your society cannot continue to exist if its members do not have children, and educate them in what it means to be a part of that society
and this really then boils down to a descriptive claim, not a perscriptive one.
it functionally IS a tautology but that doesnt make it meaningless
Let me think
but why should this inform morality in any meaningful way?
It is right to stay alive
It is right to have children
these don't demonstrate that
It is right to educate children
all these say are "people have stayed alive, had children, etc."
there's no argument for why these should be continued
only that they have been trends
consider what would happen if your society fails to do those things then
it is impossible for a society to exist outside of those
well the last doesn't seem impossible
societies are becoming more secular over time
this doesn't seem to contribute to their collapse
then we've gotten reductive come on. What does the word "worship" mean to you?
because if you get that reductive, it's impossible to buck these 5 points
thats kind of the point
its a baseline for a society to work
I can now argue for an atheist society based on this framework by being that reductive, which I don't think mr Thomas Aquinas would have been a fan of
but this baseline doesn't allow me to arrive at any interesting conclusions
and it doesn't demonstrate that any of these things are even good
@Airman Zeno Just thinking of points to push against each law respectively:
1. What about in War?
2. OK (maybe: what about overpopulation?)
3. Educate in what?
4. Very vague!! (economics?)
5. OK
I also still reject this idea that atheists are worshipping themselves, this doesn't make any sense unless you've completely redefined the word
1. War is a violation of NML, but it happens as a result of the flaws within societies
why don't we add a 6th point
societies go to war
thats an idiotic statement
this is almost universally true
was is a moral evil
war*
this seems unrelated
this claim is about as interesting and illuminating of morality as saying "chairs have four legs, and let's assume all numbers are equal to four"
if we has someone who wanted to destroy society, there is nothing in these points which would persuade them to change their mind
Someone who wants to destroy society is not going to be convinced by anything